Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on April 8, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 5, 13 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4,6-12,14-18 and 20-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 9, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 states that first transaction data is obtained and stored by the first entity. Examiner has not found support for the claim. In paragraph [0110] of the instant specification, it states that first data is read from storage. Correction required. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Additionally, Claim 1 states that a trusted token is transmitted by the first entity. Examiner has not found support for the claim. The instant specification supports a trusted token being transmitted to a customer device but does not support being transmitted by the first entity. Correction required. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Additionally, Claim 22 states that the cryptographically verifiable chain of delegations include a list of permissions. The instant specifications teaches that the second transaction data includes the list of permissions at paragraph [0067]. Correction required. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4,6-12,14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 9-12, 14-18 and 20-23 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20-23 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 9 and 15) recites the following steps:
A method of managing vouchers to control modification, the method comprising::
Generating by a first entity that is a manufacturer a voucher, the voucher indicating that a first entity has authority
obtaining and storing, by the first entity, first transaction data, the first transaction data indicating a change in authority from the first entity to a second entity;
obtaining and storing, by the first entity, second transaction data, the second transaction data indicating a change in authority from the second entity to a third entity;
updating, by the first entity, voucher using at least the first transaction data and the second transaction data to obtain a final voucher, the final voucher indicating a final entity with authority
in response to receiving the trusted token from an orchestrator, transmitting the final voucher from the first entity to the orchestrator without any of the second entity, the third entity, and the final entity ever possessing any of the voucher and the final voucher;
indicating the final entity has authority;
initiating onboarding of the data processing system by the orchestrator,
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) managing vouchers that change authority from one entity to another entity (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 9 and 15 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
for a data processing system
transmitting, by the first entity, a trusted token to the final entity, the trusted token includes a payload corresponding to the final voucher
the onboarding includes modifying a configuration of the data processing system
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers
A data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing vouchers
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 6, 7, 14, and 20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16-18 and 21-23 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a system
signing system
second system
a data processing system
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Applicant submits that the amended independent claims now recite limitations (namely, the bolded limitations of above-reproduced amended independent claim 1) that cannot be practically performed within the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper) using mere thoughts (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) alone.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Furthermore, Examiner has parsed out the claims to highlight the abstract idea and evaluated the additional elements under Step 2A - Prong Two of the analysis.
Applicant argues: Applicant submits that none of the actions of "transmitting, by the first entity, a trusted token to the final entity," and "transmitting the final voucher from the first entity to the orchestrator without any of the second entity, the third entity, and the final entity ever possessing any of the voucher and the final voucher," and "modifying a configuration of the data processing system," as recited in the amended independent claims are capable of being practically performed in the human mind using only "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions," within the human, as required by the courts.
Examiner agrees that the transmitting of a trusted token… and the modifying of the configuration of the data processing system… is not abstract and there was evaluated under Step 2A - Prong Two. Examiner has determined that the transmitting of the voucher does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and remains a part of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues: In particular, (i) even if the human mind is capable to thinking of, for example, transmitting data across a network connection, the human mind is incapable of causing the data (e.g., a trusted token or voucher) to actually be transmitted and (ii) even if the human mind is capable to thinking of, for example, modifying a data processing system, the human mind is incapable of modifying software or hardware of the data processing system.
Examiner agrees and has evaluated that limitation under Step 2A - Prong Two.
Applicant argues: Applicant submits that the claims as amended are patent-eligible at least because the claims recite non-abstract elements that reflect an improvement to the computer technology, thereby integrating the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, managing vouchers during ownership transfers is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of managing vouchers during ownership transfers is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights